| sc94597 said: Anyway, the issue isn't income equality, but income mobility. The Nordic countries which are always described by the left as socialist paradises are so egalitarian because they have fewer regulatory policies on entry to business. That's why they are higher than the U.S in economic freedom indices. That is the benefit of a free-market system, movement among the classes is simple and easy. You have a good or service that people want, you provide that good or service, they pay you for it. No special government privileges, no regulations that push you out of the market, etc, etc. That's the truly moral system. Not a system that reduces your entry, but then says alright, you can have redistribution from those we benefited, because we recognize it's unfair of us to reduce the market to only them. |
The key is that they balance that with a strong social safety net. Any society with any semblance of a moral compass (which also wants a market economy) is going to realize that the government needs to provide a basic level of dignity (achieved through direct provision of economic goods or a negative income tax of some sort) to all citizens, thus guaranteeing that no-one will ever truly suffer at the hands of the market. With that, you can lower barriers to entry (to an extent. Things like environmental regulations can't be toyed with) and are less reliant on things like the minimum wage to shore up the bottom, because you know that basically everyone is going to be taken care of in their time of need.
Is economic equality in an absolute sense achievable? No, and it won't be until we reach a post-scarcity Star Trek kind of society. Is economic equality achievable in terms of eliminating demeaning poverty, while still ensuring a functional market? Very much so.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
